EIB WEB PAGE DISGRONIFIER

The Left is Giddy Over New Marxist Book

RUSH: There's something that I want to spend some time on -- if it takes the next two days discussing with you, and it may. There's a new book out. I became aware of this while I was out, post-op. Some French socialist, Marxist, communist economist has published a book, and the left in this country is having orgasms over it. It's the number one book on Amazon. The guy's name is Thomas Piketty. It is timed coincidentally -- maybe not coincidentally -- you know, the Obama Regime and the Democrats are all on this big kick of income inequality and what to do about it. And this guy's book gives them ammo.

It's the most outrageous set of assumptions that I have ever read. In fact, it's nothing new. It's just repackaged, but I'm telling you the people on the left can barely contain themselves with their giddiness over this, and it portends grave danger for this country if any of this guy's suggestions were to ever become adopted. And Obama is on his way to trying to adopt some of them, all on the basis of getting rid of income inequality. Can somebody tell me, when has there ever been income equality, and if you can tell me when there has been income equality, can you tell me what kind of lives those people had, and what kind of country they lived in, and what kind of liberty and freedom they had.

This guy is suggesting an 80% tax rate on incomes over $500,000 a year. Not to raise revenue for the government, but to eliminate those incomes. This guy's objective is to simply wipe out the wealthy. And supposedly everybody is gonna be deliriously happy after this. It is absurd. It's stupid. It's dumb. It's ignorant. It's been tried, and it is being tried in every place in the world you wouldn't want to live. And yet the left in this country and the Democrat Party and the media, they're just chomping at the bit, excited as they can be. And I want to go through some actual factual analysis of incomes in this country and wealth and census data evidence that proves that this is the land of opportunity.

The top 1%'s not a static group. The top 10%'s not a static group. People move in and out of income groups all the time in this country. People make and lose fortunes all the time. They make a lot of money, they lose it. It's not the same 1% for 50 years. It's not the same 1% for four years. People move in and out all the time. It really is problematic what this guy is suggesting and the way it's being embraced in this country by the movers and shakers of the left is what harbingers ill will. I just want to inform you of it so that you're up to speed on it.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: There's a new book that the left has embraced. It's by a French Marxist economist named Thomas Piketty. Now, you may have heard this discussed. I first heard of this a few days ago. It's one of the reasons I've been chomping at the bit to get back here and discuss this. The reason it's being embraced is not just that it's Marxism and socialism and communism. It's embraced because it happens to coincide with Obama's big push here on income inequality. I'm told he pronounces the name Piketty. Piketty, Piketty, I couldn't care less. He's a wuss. Okay, Thomas Piketty. Fine, okay, that's how he pronounces his name. We'll give him that.

Obama is embracing this, and the left is embracing it because of Obama's push on income inequality, as though there's some moral sin in income inequality. There's some moral sin in capitalism, and therefore there is a moral sin in the United States of America. The United States of America is a moral sin. It's flawed deeply and morally because of the concentration of wealth in the top 1%. They are hoarding it. They are taking it from everybody. They are stealing it. They're not sharing it, not redistributing it, giving it away. They're not paying people enough and so forth.

To the extent that there is any concentration of wealth taking place in this country, let me tell you where it's happening. Government. The richest counties in this country used to be in Florida, in California. They are now the suburbs of Washington, DC. Wealth is being concentrated in the hands of people who are in or associated with government. They are the 1%. This is conveniently ignored by people who thrill with delight at Piketty's book.

I want to start with several analysis pieces here before I share with you my own thoughts. I want to start with a piece here by David Harsanyi, and my bad, I neglected when I printed this to make a note -- he's a scholar, a think tank contributor, blogger somewhere, and I just neglected to print, make a note of where. Here's how he begins his analysis.

"As I write this, Thomas Piketty’s book 'Capital in the Twenty-First Century' is #1 on Amazon. It’s been deemed an 'important book' by a bunch of smart people. Why not? It validates many of the preconceived notions progressives have about capitalism: Inequality is growing. Mobility is shrinking. Meritocracy is dead. We all live in a sprawling zero-sum fallacy. And so on.

"The book, as you probably know, has also sparked nonstop conversation in political and media circles. Though it’s best to let economists debunk Piketty’s methodology and data, it is worth pointing out that liberal pundits and writers have not only enthusiastically and unconditionally embraced a book on economics, or even a run-of-the-mill leftist polemic, but a hard-left manifesto."

Now, my point with starting with Mr. Harsanyi is that I think he is typical in that he is surprised at how far left the American media is today. He is surprised at how far left the Democrat Party is today. You and I are not. We know they are deeply committed Marxists. They are fascists. We see it. We're the victims of it. We're the ones they try to shut up. We're the ones who are not allowed to dissent. We are the ones, the Catherine Engelbrechts, you name it, the Tea Party, we are the ones that the powers that be on the left try to eliminate. Not converse with, not debate, none of that. We know it.

The only thing that's new about the left is in the last 20 years the media has thrown off their cloak of camouflage and they are now openly acknowledging who and what they are. Oh, yeah, Harsanyi is from the Federalist.com. He says, "Now, I realize we're all supposed to accept the fact that conservatives are alone in embracing fringe --" He's being sarcastic here -- "Now, I realize we’re all supposed to accept the fact that conservatives are alone in embracing fringe economic ideas. But how does a book that evokes Marx and talks about tweaking the Soviet experiment find so much love from people who consider themselves rational, evidence-driven moderates?"

They're not rational evidence driven moderates, Mr. Harsanyi. They are hard-left, committed socialists. It's just a point of frustration for me. Here, grab sound bite 16. As a bit of illustration here, former Senator Bob Bennett, who was defeated by Senator Mike Lee, Utah, he went to the Kennedy School, the Kennedy library March 26th and had a panel on political reform. This is a Republican, Senator Bob Bennett. And when it was his turn to speak -- this panel was on reforming, on getting along, bipartisanship, cooperation and all of that rotgut. And it's a joke. The left is not about any of that. But people like McCain and this guy Bennett fall for it (imitating McCain), "I can cross the aisle. I know how to work with the other side." They're not interested in that. Here, just listen to the bite.

BENNETT: We had 19 cosponsors, including 10 Republicans, including two members of leadership who were willing to work on a bipartisan solution because we believed that the current health care structure was impossible, terrible, bad for Americans, needed to be changed. We were frozen out of the conversation and told to go away. This was one place where I chalk it up not to anything evil. I'm not Rush Limbaugh. I'm not somebody who says he hopes the president will fail. I think this was an example of the president's inexperience of dealing with a Congress. He had a great opportunity and he muffed it.

RUSH: This guy couldn't be more wrong, and it's why he was defeated. So he says (imitating Bennett), "Obamacare, nah, the president, he had a great opportunity and muffed it. He was just inexperienced. He just didn't know how to get any Republican votes. The fact that they weren't letting us in the meetings just is inexperience." And it's this kind of ignorance and this head in-the-sand acknowledging good intentions on the part of these people is gonna be our ruination. He has to go on here and mischaracterize what I said about hoping the president failed as evil.

"I'm not going to chalk it up to anything evil. I'm not Rush Limbaugh. I'm not somebody who says he hopes the president will fail." I still wish this guy would fail, folks! I don't want anything that he's doing! I wish Obamacare hadn't happened. I wish the stimulus hadn't happened, and everybody who heard me say that knew exactly what I meant by it. They still took it as an opportunity to run with it in a totally different direction. Everybody knew what I meant by that, but they chose to mischaracterize it on purpose for their own selfish, personal political reasons, but it couldn't have been more rational. "I hope he fails."

The Wall Street Journal wanted 400 words on -- I forgot what the question was. Something about 400 words on what you hope the president -- I said, "I don't need 400 words, I need four. I hope he fails." 'Cause I knew what he was. This is my point. I knew who Obama was. I knew what a committed socialist was. I knew what an Alinskyite he was. I knew what he was going to do if he was not opposed. I knew what he was gonna do if he had clear smooth sailing. I knew what his intentions were. I knew what he thought of this country, I knew it.

Robert Bennett should have known it. Every Republican in Washington should have known exactly what Barack Obama was. It was right out in the open for anybody to know. It was not a mystery. It didn't require deep investigation. It just required commitment to believe it. And they couldn't get past the man's skin color in order to accept the truth. They were paralyzed by that, and I don't mean to be harping on David Harsanyi here. It's not my point, but he is like in a way Bennett here. He's shocked that modern-day Democrats are accepting a Marxist socialist economics book.

He said: "It’s unlikely that Democrats would have praised a book like this 20 years ago -- or even 10. Nowadays, Jack Lew -- better known as the Treasury Secretary of the United States of America -- takes time to chit chat with the author." This is my point. It is very likely Democrats 20 years ago would have behind the scenes been embracing -- the only thing new is that they are no longer hiding who they are. They've always been who they are.

There are reasons for why the mask of camouflage has been dropped, and I really do believe it's because of the loss of their media monopoly, which has forced them into sort of a competitive mode. They're now having to compete and they no longer get away with this phony objectivity that they always were granted. They always benefited from the assumption that they were objective. Yeah, they might have been liberal, but they were fair. They never were. They were always hard leftists. They always have been hard leftists, and now all they've done is come forth and admit it.

"How does a book that evokes Marx and talks about tweaking the Soviet experiment find so much love from people who consider themselves rational, evidence-driven moderates?" Have people not been paying attention the last seven years, or six, whatever the hell it is this guy's been in office? Have people not been paying attention to what's happening, or is it they choose not to notice it? And I'm not harping on Harsanyi. Please do not anybody send him a note that I'm ripping him to shreds. This is serving here as an object lesson.

He goes on to say: "Piketty, a professor at the Paris School of Economics, argues that capitalism allocates resources efficiently but unfairly apportions income. And the excessive accumulation of wealth by the one percent ... is not only corrupt, but an inequality that makes democracy unsustainable. And it’s going to get worse. So only a massive transfer of wealth could make our nation whole again."

Well, hello, this is Barack Obama. This is Saul Alinsky. This isn't anything new. I guess it is new to some people to see every day on cable news your average, ordinary guest agree with this stuff, but that's what's new. It's just new that they're admitting it. They didn't in the last 20 years go from moderate to fascist. They've always been liberal fascists. It's why I keep harping on the importance for people learning and understanding ideology and how to associate it with people so you know what's coming. Note it Mr. Piketty is not giving his book away. He's charging $39.95 for his book. Why? Why does he need the money? Just a little side question.

"Here is his thesis, boiled down: When the rate of return on capital exceeds the rate of growth of output and income, as it did in the nineteenth century and seems quite likely to do again in the twenty-first, capitalism automatically generates arbitrary and unsustainable inequalities that radically undermine the meritocratic values on which democratic societies are based."

There's no data to support any such claim. I'll get to that in minute. He goes on, Piketty goes on to suggest an 80% tax rate to fix this inequality business, an 80% tax rate on incomes starting at $500,000 or one million a year. Not to raise money for education. Not to raise money for mass transit. Not to raise money for AIDS research. Not to raise money for anything. Not to increase unemployment benefits. Piketty argues for an 80% tax rate to put an end to incomes over $500,000 a year.

And we have people in America today who can't believe that this is being supported by modern-day Democrats. And that's what surprises me. Do they not hear what modern-day Democrats say? Do they not know what Obamacare is? Do they not know what the outcome of Obamacare is? Do they not see where the president wants to take tax policy, do they not listen to what he says? Do they not know when the president of the United States makes a big deal about income inequality, do they not know what that means?

When has income ever been equal? If you don't believe in free will and independence and liberty in a general sense, if you don't believe in those things then you will find arguments about beneficent and wise, Big Government alluring. If you're a coward; if you're afraid to strike out on your own; if you're afraid to take a risk; if you're afraid to go for it; if you'd rather have the security of knowing you're gonna be taken care of and at the same time somebody who did take a risk and it pays off and they become wealthy, they're gonna be gotten even with, then Big Government's for you.

But if you believe in free will -- we've got 200, 300 million people in this country and every one of us is different. There is nothing about any of us that is equal. That is what the law is to do. But there is no guarantee, there can't be a guarantee, there never was a guarantee, it's not godly or humanly possible for there to be equality of outcome.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Here's the question, folks. How many more people must suffer under these Marxist, socialist, liberal theories before a free people like those of us in this country aggressively and permanently reject this nonsense? I don't know. I'm really bothered, look, I'm conflicted. I'm glad people's eyes are being opened, and if this book is opening people's eyes as to just what the current left is, fine. But I'm a little sad that it's taken six years. 'Cause look what's happened in these six years. Real deep damage has been done to the underlying foundation, and I mean foundation, founding of this country.

I'm gonna get you the numbers here before this program ends. You compare the suffering, the human suffering under communism, socialism, Marxism versus the human suffering under capitalism, there is no comparison whatsoever, none. The human suffering that occurs in communism and socialism knows no comparison. The suffering that occurs in capitalism can't even make a dent. Now, of course free markets create unequal results. Sorry, folks. That's what freedom does.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Now back to this lamebrain Piketty from France. I'm yukking it up with this guy. I'm telling you, this is serious stuff because many more people than apparently a lot of people realize are eating it up and want to implement it in this country. And, folks, the reason it scares me is the last six years were not necessary. This could have been avoided. Obama could have been defeated with just a little honesty about who he was because we are not the minority in this country.

We are being governed and ruled by a really small minority of people. They happen to control the media which makes them look big. They are mean, they are vicious, and they do not tolerate any dissent whatsoever. They are the modern day Marxists, fascists. From this poor guy at Mozilla, to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, I mean the list is long of people who have been silenced, intimidated, threatened in the United States of America, by other so-called Americans. Obama didn't have to win in 2008, he didn't have to win in 2012, and Hillary doesn't have to win in 2016. She's one of them. She's no different than any of the others. They're all in on this stuff.

What does inequality of income mean? Has there ever been equality of income? The Pilgrims tried it. It's right there in Rush Revere and the Brave Pilgrims, my first ever children's book. Didn't work. True story. The actual story of the first Thanksgiving is socialism's failure and William Bradford and the gang's thanks to God for seeing the light.

They tried income equality. Everybody got the same. The same amount of land. Everybody got the same income. No matter who worked harder, everybody got the same. They thought that would be fair. They just arrived in a new place, what could be fairer? Everybody ends up with the same thing. Guess what? The slackers slacked. The lazy lazed and they lived off the hard work of the industrious. And the industrious continued to be industrious because it was their nature.

The lazy continued to be lazy 'cause it was their nature. And finally unrest started to happen and the colony wasn't gonna hold together. So they had to change it up. They had to recognize that people were going to only get a portion of what they produced. What they produced was theirs, and that made everybody industrious, voila. It's right there in William Bradford's journal. The lesson is that old, but this lesson is biblical. The failure of socialism is biblical. Socialism is not charity. Socialism is not kindness. It's not compassion. It's the exact opposite. The Democrat Party is not kindness, it's not compassion. The Democrat Party is punitive.

The Democrat Party has an enemies list and it's anybody who succeeds who is not a member of the clan. What does equality of income mean? How would you do it? Would you base it on family size? Would you base it on hours worked? Would you base it on what somebody supposedly needs? Would you base income equality on society? I mean, if you're gonna have income equality, everybody's gonna have enough income to do what? To buy what? Everybody's gonna be able to own what? Who's gonna decide this? The places and the countries that have tried this nobody owns anything except the leaders. There is no property. Nobody's allowed to own property.

So that question's dealt with right off the bat. Nobody's gonna have to enough to own anything and nobody's gonna be permitted to own anything. The state is gonna own everything. And if you stay in good graces with the state then you'll be okay as far as okay gets you. But if you're not, you're an enemy of the state, and that's what we are today. Anybody that's not an Obamaite is an enemy of the state. Anybody that's not all-in with Eric Holder is an enemy of the state. Talk to Catherine Engelbrecht, talk to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, talk to Brendan Eich, Condoleezza Rice, Dropbox. They tried to get her forced out of Dropbox, named her to the board of directors. She's an enemy of the state in the United States of America.

And here comes this idiot Piketty with his book and these clowns are all addressing it, embracing it. Who's gonna make these determinations of who gets what? Who's gonna make these determinations of what we all need to be equal? The same people who brought us Obamacare? The same people who run the DMV? The same people running the climate change movement? Who are these people gonna be? The people that can routinely get a CEO fired for giving a thousand dollars to a proposition that says marriage is that between a man and a woman? Can you imagine believing that marriage is between a man and a woman is enough to get you exiled in the United States of America today? But it is?

My point is, this is not new. The sentiment is not new. The desire is not new. The bravery is new because there's no opposition to it because everybody's scared to death to oppose it. There are graves, there are gulags, there are homeless shelters filled with human beings who have suffered under these experiments, socialism and communism. In North Korea, in China, in Cuba, it's all over the world. That's what is exceptional about the United States of America and that's what American exceptionalism is. We are the exception to living the way most people have since the beginning of time.

Liberty and freedom are taken for granted by people who are born to it, and, as such, they're the last to recognize it being encroached upon. But it is in the process of happening. Daily people are losing liberty. Daily people are losing freedom. Daily more and more people are afraid to tell you what they really think about something. We are being ruled, we are being governed by a genuine minority. The latest polling data on the Keystone pipeline, 61, 62% want it. The left is not the majority in this country. But they've made themselves look like they are with the help of the media, who are perhaps the leaders by design in this thing.

I gotta take one final time-out here. Well, I've got to take another break, but I want to go through some stats about the wide range of income and who makes it and who loses it in this country. There is not a constant top 1%. It's not the same people from birth to death. There's not a 1% that you can never become a member of. There's not a top 10% that you can never -- wait 'til you hear these stats, based on census data.